Question on Name of the Wind

[Ampersand]

It's like you're trying to convince us tomato sauce is poison because you don't like it on your cornflakes.

Off topic, but this is the best comparison ever.

[Knight Of Laughing Tree]

i don't see what the problem is, its an enjoyable book to read. The writing is good and the character is interesting. its kind of like reading how a greek legend would describe itself. i also really enjoy how well thought out IMO the magic system is in the series. sympathy is something i can definitely get behind, and Naming is broken but its enjoyable.

anyway, haters gotta hate, so have a good time.

[Grack21]

I'd say there's a valid comparison to be made between Rothfuss and Goodkind. Both think they're writing about IMPORTANT HUMAN THEMES, when in fact they write campy shlock. And both are wildly overrated.

Well, that's the craziest thing I've read all year. And I read some Karen MIller.

Edit: I'll bite, what is the transformers defense? Those movies raped my childhood memories.

Edit 2; It should be noted that I believe Michael Bay is the anti-christ, that I believe Armageddon to be the worst film ever made(and I was dragged to see nacho libre) and that I'd rather have Robert Stanek read the entire Sword of Truth series out loud to me while David Farland and oh let's say Michael Moore jump up and down on my balls while UWE BOLL SHITS IN MY MOUTH then watch 1 minute of a Michael Bay film. So I'm somewhat biased against anything called the transformers defense. :P

[Nnorb]

I'll bite, what is the transformers defense? Those movies raped my childhood memories.

The Transformers defence is an attempt to recast a guilty pleasure as something critically defensible. e.g. "Just turn off your brain and enjoy the awesomeness/explosions/Kvothe."

Generally proffered by the dudebro cretins that consider ignorance a virtue.

[Curethan]

I'm still vaguely curious as to why you thought it would be such a life changing and important book in the first place.

I think you should be offering your alleged criticisms to whoever convinced you of that instead.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nnorb,

The Transformers defence is an attempt to recast a guilty pleasure as something critically defensible. e.g. "Just turn off your brain and enjoy the awesomeness/explosions/Kvothe."

Generally proffered by the dudebro cretins that consider ignorance a virtue.

So, to those of us who say you need to turn your brain on and see how Rothfuss is using a "gary stu" character to deconstruct the whole "gary stu" archetype? What is your response. My contention is that Kvothe's great flaw is his "Gary Stuness". Things come to him so easily that he never really stops to think about why he should or should not do something, then very bad things follow.

[Ampersand]

So, to those of us who say you need to turn your brain on and see how Rothfuss is using a "gary stu" character to deconstruct the whole "gary stu" archetype? What is your response. My contention is that Kvothe's great flaw is his "Gary Stuness". Things come to him so easily that he never really stops to think about why he should or should not do something, then very bad things follow.

I agree with this, although I can easily sympathize with the people who find Kvothe's brilliance off-putting at first. I think it took me a reread to realize exactly how unreliable he is as a narrator, and that his major flaw (as you pointed out) kind of telegraphs how this will end as a tragedy.

It's funny; I think in deconstructing the Gary Stu character, Rothfuss has ended up sincerely recreating a Greek tragedy. But I guess we won't know for a while.

[Apathete]

I feel that Kvothe is a Gary Stu, and telling me that I would see your if I just read more carefully is pretty condescending.

The reasons I still read the books are threefold. Firstly the framing device, which means you can kind of accept all his brilliance because you know it's all going to go wrong. Secondly the prose is really excellent. Finally the Chandrian being so much stronger than him also implies he still won't win the big battles, so again you accept his infallibility for now.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AM,

I'm agreeing that Kvothe is a Gary Stu. What I contend you are missing is how his Gary Stuness is what will bring him to a tragic ending. That's the deconstruction.

[Contrarius]

I feel that Kvothe is a Gary Stu, and telling me that I would see your if I just read more carefully is pretty condescending.

It's not condescending when it comes from me, because I speak from personal experience.

As I've mentioned before, Kvothe's Gary Stu-ness still irritates me at times. However, it is very true that I learn to appreciate the books more and more in direct relation to how much time I spend studying them. I am certainly not insulting myself by saying such a thing, so I would hope that nobody else would be insulted when I suggest that the same approach might work for them. :)

[Screaming Turkey Reborn]

Just because Rothfuss subverts fantasy tropes doesn't mean his novels are automatically more thoughtful, intelligent and literary. It's not difficult to engage in subversion; all you have to do is be contrarian, and I think he does it badly--that is to say I think he encompasses the cheesy aspects that he tries to dissect. I found The Name of the Wind entertaining, but not particularly deep. I found The Wise Man's Fear intolerable, possibly one of the worst books I've ever read. Rothfuss gets much more credit than is due.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

STR,

You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion. But your opinion is not fact.

[Screaming Turkey Reborn]

STR,

You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion. But your opinion is not fact.

Never did I say it was fact. It is merely my opinion.

[Errant Bard]

I kind of agree with STR's opinion: subversion has no inherent value. It does not make a story better or worse in itself, and it is way too overused to qualify everything under the sun that one thinks is different from his expectations. It is also highly dependent on what the reader wants to see... There is no fact here, as Scot points. It's perfectly valid to claim that Goodkind or Rowling do as much subversion as Rothfuss, it's just a matter of pointing what you deem to be the normal archetype, and then how the story differs, even if it's poorly executed, and claim it's genius. That's typically what fans do, as seen both in this thread and on forums speaking of those other two series.

This being said, the concept of exploring the differences between legend and the real character is interesting, but it's basically what everyone does nowadays (take, I don't know, Abercrombie, Morgan, Parker, Martin, Bakker, Durham, Wolfe, Duncan, Butcher, heck, even Collins), and I feel Rothfuss' story is below par compared to most others, be it in world consistency, storytelling, pacing, character development, character interactions or even thematic exploration (which should be the forte of the book, apparently.) *

You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion. But your opinion is not fact.

Neither is anyone's in this thread. Was implying that his input is of less value than that of others really necessary? It's what "it's your opinion" always means, you cannot ignore that.

*Note: "Only" my opinion. Since it apparently needs to be pointed out.

[Nnorb]

You are certainly entitled to hold that opinion. But your opinion is not fact.

That's just, like, your opinion man.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nnorb,

That's just, like, your opinion man.

Eight year olds Dude.

[Knight Of Laughing Tree]

i love how everyone continues to argue about the subject, its like trying to go into a church and convince the congregation that their god is a sham, or trying to explain to atheists that believing that something doesn't exist is exactly the same as believing it does exist only in the reverse.

it is truly pointless, you bicker back and fourth as if your actually going to change the other persons opinion and you do come off as sounding like a pack of children, as SSaE said while at the same time contributing to the childishness of it all by saying that his opponents opinion was less valid than his own, and yes that is how it appears.

i don't see why its an argument in the first place, why can't people be happy that they have their point of view and that others differ in their opinion of the book.

is it a good book, i think so, and thats my opinion. if you disagree then your welcome to. i can't change what you like, nor would i want to at the same time, and at the same time please recognize that your not going to change my view of the book.

[Nnorb]

My goodness Laughing Tree, a post of that philosophical sophistication, you'd think it was written by Rothfuss himself!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

KOLT,

The problem is that if we all simply agreed to disagree it would be a very short discussion.

EB,

I'm not trying to be insulting. I got the mistaken impression that STR had gone beyond stating an opinion and was saying NOTW was a weak book as some sort of established fact.

[Knight Of Laughing Tree]

My goodness Laughing Tree, a post of that philosophical sophistication, you'd think it was written by Rothfuss himself!

what you talking bout Rothfuss himself, fool copied me